User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 71

  1. #41
    Senior Member TheLastMohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    You have created a false definition. Empiricism is the belief that experience and evidence, as derived from the senses, is the source of true knowledge. "Personal" is not part of the definition, so your explanation is false. We compare our experiences all the time, and it is for that reason we are able to progress. Whereas the rationalist argues that reason is the only source of knowledge. All the while ignoring the reality that reason is based upon observations which were derived from the senses. Reason is the tool of experience, not the other way around.



    You think you can get close to obtaining 100% of knowledge? Rationalism, taken to the extreme as it often is by INTJs, is nothing but a defense mechanism designed to protect the ego from the external world. Thus, being "perfectly rational" means creating an objective reality in your head and denying any experience from the outside world which conflicts with it.
    I think we passed each other in the dark here. I agree with most of what you are saying, except you say you are describing empiricism.
    The Merriam Webster Dictionary definition:
    empiricism



    Main Entry: em

  2. #42
    Senior Member TheLastMohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    You have created a false definition. Empiricism is the belief that experience and evidence, as derived from the senses, is the source of true knowledge. "Personal" is not part of the definition, so your explanation is false. We compare our experiences all the time, and it is for that reason we are able to progress. Whereas the rationalist argues that reason is the only source of knowledge. All the while ignoring the reality that reason is based upon observations which were derived from the senses. Reason is the tool of experience, not the other way around.



    You think you can get close to obtaining 100% of knowledge? Rationalism, taken to the extreme as it often is by INTJs, is nothing but a defense mechanism designed to protect the ego from the external world. Thus, being "perfectly rational" means creating an objective reality in your head and denying any experience from the outside world which conflicts with it.
    Oh, shoot, somehow my extremely long post got cut off near the beginning when I tried to post it. I really can't stay up later here, so I'll have to continue tomorrow.

  3. #43
    Member typo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    54

    Default

    At least there's no such thing as unrequited Schizophrenia.

  4. #44
    Member typo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    54

    Default Is rationalism a defense mechanism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    You think you can get close to obtaining 100% of knowledge? Rationalism, taken to the extreme as it often is by INTJs, is nothing but a defense mechanism designed to protect the ego from the external world. Thus, being "perfectly rational" means creating an objective reality in your head and denying any experience from the outside world which conflicts with it.
    I would define someone who is rational (to the extreme) as someone who withholds belief in anything not substantiated by evidence--a hardlined skeptic. It is an interesting question whether some people might become skeptics out of emotional comfort, but whether they do or not, I do not see how "denying experience" would have a genuine role in a skeptic's position--especially an extreme skeptic. Extreme skeptics avoid all attachments to particular views of the world "created in their heads" as you put it; that's exactly what they want to avoid. In order to have some confidence in what little they know (or more importantly to know what they do not know) everything else gets rejected. Still I had never thought of this position as being emotionally comforting before, but I think for me at least, it is comforting. And I am far from perfectly rational.

  5. #45
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nameless View Post
    They pointed out how a lot of musicians and scientists hit the creative wall at about the point in time that they get married at, suggesting that much of your biological creativity is around so that you can attract yourself a mate.
    That's the way I look at it. The purpose of brains and achievements is for attaining the best partner and the best love. Other than that, what the hell else are brains good for?

    Quote Originally Posted by mparente View Post
    At least there's no such thing as unrequited Schizophrenia.

  6. #46
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mparente View Post
    I would define someone who is rational (to the extreme) as someone who withholds belief in anything not substantiated by evidence--a hardlined skeptic. It is an interesting question whether some people might become skeptics out of emotional comfort, but whether they do or not, I do not see how "denying experience" would have a genuine role in a skeptic's position--especially an extreme skeptic. Extreme skeptics avoid all attachments to particular views of the world "created in their heads" as you put it; that's exactly what they want to avoid. In order to have some confidence in what little they know (or more importantly to know what they do not know) everything else gets rejected. Still I had never thought of this position as being emotionally comforting before, but I think for me at least, it is comforting. And I am far from perfectly rational.
    Your definition is one sided.

    Rationalism divides into two perspectives. These are relativism and objectivism. Extreme relativists are skeptics. They hold that reason dictates that nothing in the world is knowable. Extreme objectivists believe in the infallibility of their reasoning. They believe, through reason, they can know everything in the world, and follow the idea of "enlightened self interest" which denotes the ego protection I was discussing earlier. INTJ rationalists are most commonly objectivists, and so that is why I made the argument in Duke of York's case that being "perfectly rational" means creating an objective reality in his head and denying any experience from the outside world which conflicts with it. This has nothing to do with "emotional comfort". The ego's main purpose is to keep the individual safe, and it does so by reasoning through the id's primitive impulses and the super ego's emotional impulses. Rationalism taken to the extreme is the ego seeking to justify not acting on altruistic impulses by arguing that such impulses are irrational and the individual can only help others by protecting themselves.

    I believe my argument is the most realistic. People gather information through their senses, and from those observations they form perceptions of the world around them (experience). They then can share those perceptions with others, and through measurements and methodology (science), they can observe consistency from their observations and deduce truths (reason). Hence, reason is the tool of experience. Extreme rationalists, however, believe only in the process of reason and ignore the role of experience and science as necessary to understanding the world. Just like Duke of York, they believe the pinnacle of human existence is becoming completely rational. Sadly, being completely rational means being driven by your ego to protect yourself above all others and effectively denying yourself the experiences of being human. Hence why Duke of York is arguing that "love" is dangerous, because he wants a rational justification for avoiding the experience.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  7. #47
    Senior Member nemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    NeTi
    Enneagram
    <3
    Socionics
    wtf
    Posts
    445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PinkPiranha View Post
    I hear it's worth while too. To my knowledge, I've never been in love, but I know what it's done for others, how it makes them feel. Joining your energy to someone else's can be all the difference between making it and going under sometimes.
    Me neither. I gather that not knowing makes it unlikely I've ever been in love.

    But yes, I agree.

    And as much as I hate to admit this, since it's contrary to some part of my inner-being, life is not rational. I wish it was. Terrible, horrifying things happen to amazing people for no discernible reason, while at the same time luck befalls those who've not toiled for its attention. Weird.

    Life is just too irrecoverably shattered by differing human perception, putting a permanent, gaping chasm between people and anything approaching absolute truth. It is, on many levels, impossible to make sense of this senseless world; and I've found that, in practice anyway, order, unity, and continuity are ad-hoc human inventions imposed upon reality.

    Not to get all post-modern on you guys, or anything.

    But if you can find someone to forage your own meaning with, enjoy life in all it's absurdity and irony, someone with whom you can marvel at this beautiful spectacle of existence, and find happiness and endurance in the chaos of life -- well, then, I think that's about as close to the truth as you can be.

    That's why I think you might as well enjoy those brief moments of insanity. As Pink said, they can be all the difference between making it and going under.

    But to the OP: if you can live well enough alone and without that, more power to you. But I don't see any reason why you shouldn't at least try it. Love usually isn't fatal (ahem), and I personally don't think you'll necessarily "need it" after experiencing it.

    And besides, if you do become addicted, they say that love is curable by marriage.
    You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club. - Jack London

  8. #48
    Senior Member TheLastMohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Your definition is one sided.

    Rationalism divides into two perspectives. These are relativism and objectivism. Extreme relativists are skeptics. They hold that reason dictates that nothing in the world is knowable. Extreme objectivists believe in the infallibility of their reasoning. They believe, through reason, they can know everything in the world, and follow the idea of "enlightened self interest" which denotes the ego protection I was discussing earlier. INTJ rationalists are most commonly objectivists, and so that is why I made the argument in Duke of York's case that being "perfectly rational" means creating an objective reality in his head and denying any experience from the outside world which conflicts with it. This has nothing to do with "emotional comfort". The ego's main purpose is to keep the individual safe, and it does so by reasoning through the id's primitive impulses and the super ego's emotional impulses. Rationalism taken to the extreme is the ego seeking to justify not acting on altruistic impulses by arguing that such impulses are irrational and the individual can only help others by protecting themselves.

    I believe my argument is the most realistic. People gather information through their senses, and from those observations they form perceptions of the world around them (experience). They then can share those perceptions with others, and through measurements and methodology (science), they can observe consistency from their observations and deduce truths (reason). Hence, reason is the tool of experience. Extreme rationalists, however, believe only in the process of reason and ignore the role of experience and science as necessary to understanding the world. Just like Duke of York, they believe the pinnacle of human existence is becoming completely rational. Sadly, being completely rational means being driven by your ego to protect yourself above all others and effectively denying yourself the experiences of being human. Hence why Duke of York is arguing that "love" is dangerous, because he wants a rational justification for avoiding the experience.
    Time out: I looked up "rationalist," and discovered I am not a true one, but closer to your description of the "empiricism tempered by reasoning," given a certain definition of "tempered by reasoning."
    I had written a long post on this that disappeared (argh)...I don't want to fill this thread with posts about Rationalism vs. Empiricism or whatever else might come up, so shall we take the the discussion to a new thread?
    Oh, and I should cover the love part on this thread: As I said earlier, I am seeking insight from others about their logic and why they seek love. I am not declaring you all irrational, but I am trying to find out why you subject yourselves to an irrational state. And I did not look for a rational justification to avoid the experience, it is just there, and I want to know what way the rest of you have found around it. *sigh*
    Now, how about that new thread? Your call.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Priam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nemo View Post
    And as much as I hate to admit this, since it's contrary to some part of my inner-being, life is not rational. I wish it was. Terrible, horrifying things happen to amazing people for no discernible reason, while at the same time luck befalls those who've not toiled for its attention. Weird.

    Life is just too irrecoverably shattered by differing human perception, putting a permanent, gaping chasm between people and anything approaching absolute truth. It is, on many levels, impossible to make sense of this senseless world; and I've found that, in practice anyway, order, unity, and continuity are ad-hoc human inventions imposed upon reality.

    Not to get all post-modern on you guys, or anything.
    I would both agree and disagree, as is my wont to do. Life and this world are absolutely not rational or logical, but they are reasonable. The crucial thing for a thinker to accept is that reason does not equal logic, but they both still serve to explain phenomena. Everything done in this world by humanity is done for a reason, however warped and twisted that might be, and seeing deeply into it allows one to come closer in knowing the cause and/or, sometimes more importantly, the prevention of it in the future. The fundamental break, and what makes stereotypical NFs so much better at dealing diplomatically than stereotypical NTs, is acceptance that things making no rational sense can nevertheless be true, pertinent and useful.

    But if you can find someone to forage your own meaning with, enjoy life in all it's absurdity and irony, someone with whom you can marvel at this beautiful spectacle of existence, and find happiness and endurance in the chaos of life -- well, then, I think that's about as close to the truth as you can be.

    That's why I think you might as well enjoy those brief moments of insanity. As Pink said, they can be all the difference between making it and going under.

    But to the OP: if you can live well enough alone and without that, more power to you. But I don't see any reason why you shouldn't at least try it. Love usually isn't fatal (ahem), and I personally don't think you'll necessarily "need it" after experiencing it.

    And besides, if you do become addicted, they say that love is curable by marriage.
    Precisely.
    "The subject chooses to sit in shadow and search for wisdom by reflecting upon his trial. The problem is not that he is cold and wet, but that cold and wet seems problematic, so he embraces those hardships in order to best them."

  10. #50
    Senior Member TheLastMohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    I think the OP might be a little misrepresentative. Dopamine is the culprit here. It's the neurotransmitter that is found in high quantities in those who are schizophrenic and those who are in love. Dopamine is associated with the pleasure center of the brain; the area that has to deal with rewards and motivation. It also controls the flow of information in the frontal lobes, which is the center of our neurocognitive functions.

    Dopamine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Avoiding love would be like trying to avoid classical conditioning. It just isn't possible.
    Impossible. That is a little unsettling, but it might very well be true. It would be nice if I had absolute control over such things, but I know that I don't. However, if you simply avoid the person you think you might be fallingin love with, and don't see the person for a long time, wouldn't your condition go away?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO